W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:06:34 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5836C73C-C352-4495-9511-9793ABFC54FE@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 01/09/2011, at 8:51 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/295> - fragment handling

We discussed this a little while back, and the only pushback was from you as to whether it was appropriate for HTTPbis to go here.

We have feedback from Eric and Adam that they'd like to see us do this.

I put forth the idea of going to the TAG about it earlier, but when we asked them about #43, they didn't seem to have any strong advice (see <http://www.w3.org/mid/760bcb2a1003120853q6548f1a9u54f0aef723f4f45a@mail.gmail.com>).

Speaking personally -- I think it would improve interop if we did this, and I think we should also consider reopening #43 to define the case where both have a fragment (since there appears to be emerging interop). 

Having HTTP define fragment combination (both in the single and dual cases) makes sense, because IME, client-side stacks handle HTTP redirects automatically, before the format-specific machinery ever gets to see the HTTP. Requiring -- or even allowing -- that this be format-specific opens up a huge can of worms in most implementations, and makes the Web a much more complex place.

What do others think?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 01:07:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:47 GMT